It would seem very strange to add an implementation section at WGLC,
since by IETF policy they are removed before RFC publication. (For
context, the driving reason for removal is that they inherently become
obsolete.)
It is reasonable to include comments on implementation in the shepherd
writeup. That has to be short. Authors, can you clarify whether it
would be accurate for Jim to report "there have been implementations for
many years, and multiple interoperability tests" ?
Thank you,
Joel
On 4/30/2021 12:12 PM, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) wrote:
Hi Boris,
I will leave it the chair/shepherd guidance on this one.
EANTC has been running multi-vendor interop for Segment Routing that
covers this document along with signalling protocols like PCEP and
BGP-SRTE every year since at least 2016. It includes various controller
and router products. Their results are published in whitepapers which
might perhaps provide at least some of the information that you are looking.
Thanks,
Ketan
*From:*Boris Hassanov <[email protected]>
*Sent:* 30 April 2021 20:49
*To:* [email protected]; James Guichard <[email protected]>;
Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[email protected]>
*Cc:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy
Hi Ketan,
Yes, I meant an implementation status section in the draft.
The either one way, which will be easier to accomplish. We need to fix
such status somewhere, IMO.
Thank you.
SY,
Boris
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021, 8:48:06 AM GMT+3, Ketan Talaulikar
(ketant) <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Boris,
Thanks for your review and feedback.
Did you imply that we add an add an implementation status section in the
draft? Or are you suggesting that the chairs poll for implementation
and deployment status? I ask because the Implementation Status section
is generally removed before publication as RFC.
Regarding implementation, I am aware of support for this draft in
Cisco’s Routing products for many years now with multiple deployments. I
am also aware of other vendor support & operator deployment. However,
would request other WG members to respond/confirm.
Thanks,
Ketan
*From:*spring <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*On Behalf Of *Boris Hassanov
*Sent:* 28 April 2021 02:43
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; James Guichard
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Cc:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy
Hi James and all,
I read the draft and strongly support its publication as WG document.
Very detailed, helpful and interesting document.
I would only add implementation status part because currently it is not
easy to get such info about implementation details.
Thank you.
SY,
Boris
On Thursday, April 15, 2021, 9:57:11 PM GMT+3, James Guichard
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
Dear WG:
This email starts a 2 week Working Group Last Call for
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy [1].
Please read this document if you haven’t read the most recent version
and send your comments to the SPRING WG list no later than April 29^th
2021.
If you are raising a point which you expect will be specifically debated
on the mailing list, consider using a specific email/thread for this point.
Lastly, if you are an author or contributors for this document please
response to the IPR call in the previous email thread.
Thanks!
Jim, Joel & Bruno
[1]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy/>
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
